[W:183]Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Robertinfremont said:

There is one good thing about abortion that none of us can deny. It severely curtailed the crime rate among blacks. We can clap loudly for that.

Click to expand...

Only among blacks?

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Robertinfremont said:

Why then since the 14th amendment was made our law in 1868 did so many states have anti abortion laws? Seems they then could cite the 14th. Why didn't they?

Click to expand...

??? That was the point of RvW. There was finally a challenge to those unConstitutional state laws...RvW....and RvW clarified that they were indeed unConstitutional and they were voided :doh

Law courses? Really?

Why was interracial marriage still illegal in so many states for so many years after blacks were recognized as equal? It took a challenge, Loving vs. Virginia to challenge the law in VA and SCOTUS's decision determined that laws barring interracial marriage were unConsititutional.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Robertinfremont said:

There is one good thing about abortion that none of us can deny. It severely curtailed the crime rate among blacks. We can clap loudly for that.

Click to expand...

Been awhile since I've seen the racist pro-choice argument. I wonder why it is that we pro-choicers never use it?

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Lursa said:

Only among blacks?

Click to expand...

No, and not only by abortion.

An American mom today is twice as likely to die in childbirth than her own mother was - MarketWatch

Globally, maternal mortality fell about 44% between 1990 and 2015, according to the World Health Organization. But the U.S. is out of step: Moms die in about 17 out of every 100,000 U.S. births each year, up from 12 per 100,000 a quarter century ago.

Pregnancy-related deaths are rising in the United States and the main risk factor is being black, according to new reports that highlight racial disparities in care during and after childbirth.

Black women, along with Native Americans and Alaska natives, are three times more likely to die before, during or after having a baby, and more than half of these deaths are preventable, Tuesday’s report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concludes.

Click to expand...

Another example of the hypocrisy of pro lifers caring about life. But not about a womans life.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Scrabaholic said:

First of, zefs aren't persons. FACT.

Second, it seems that anti choicers want to own pregnant women....

Click to expand...

No, it is worse than that -- They want the government to nationalise the biological functions of women. Small government as long as lights are turned on and people are dressed, but when lights are turned off and clothes come off, all that is small government, individual autonomy and pursuit of happiness flies out the window.

There is nothing Conservative about a Pro Life position as far as I am concerned.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Blue Donkey said:

Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Click to expand...

We always do.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Integrityrespec said:

You have a high opinion of your belief that women should be able to abort unborn babies based on it being the right thing. Well, killing unborn babies is not the "right thing" to do and your moral compass is f'd up.

Click to expand...

No such thing as “unborn babies”, and morals are entirely subjective. Just because you feel or believe a certain way doesn’t mean you’re correct.

Integrityrespec said:

... killing unborn babies ....

Click to expand...

Again, no such thing as “unborn babies”.

Integrityrespec said:

Your opinion is based on someone else's opinion of what the "law" should be. Once upon a time we had a law that said it was ok to own another person and do with them as you like. Abortion is sort of like that. According to your opinion a woman owns that "fetus" and can do with it what ever she likes. Chose to kill it or to let it live. We wisely did away with that law that allowed us to own other people and do with them whatever we wanted. Hopefully we will get rid of the current one that allows us to "own" another person, (born or not).

Click to expand...

False equivalency. Slaves were born people, whereas fetus’s are not and are not entitled to the same Constitutional protections.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Blue Donkey said:

After countless petty arguments that break down into personal attacks in almost every abortion thread, we are long overdue for real, constructive discussions here. That means no matter how you feel about every pregnant citizen's right to have a legal abortion, you must avoid letting emotions rule and totally ignore the facts. Emotions are great, but facts always come first. If your opinions are based on emotions, they are worthless because there are no facts to support them. Yes, I am talking to the anti-choicers here, but pro-choicers have to do their part too. On both sides, the rule is, "If you can't prove it, you're wrong."

With all of that said, let's begin. The United States Constitution is very clear that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights and all girls and women have the rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and lifestyle choices. This can't be denied. Also undeniable are the definitions of murder and homicide, which have always been limited to killing born humans for malicious reasons in both English dictionaries and books about law. So the abortion debate is not about if the right to have abortions does exist, but everything else - sociology, biology, maternity, crimes, and personal finance.

Click to expand...

The highlighted portion of your post is the basis for your argument. It is empty.

Please cite the area of the Constitution in which the words in your sentence appear in the Constitution. Since those words DO NOT appear in the Constitution, you assertion is denied.

The Supreme Court decision regarding abortion was as legally well founded as the Supreme Court decisions rendered in Dred Scot and Plessy v Ferguson. Socially expedient, but morally unjustifiable.

Rights and privileges are accorded to many who are alive in the US who were not BORN in the USA and are not legally allowed to be here. Your argument is empty by your own standards.

If you were to murder an immigrant here illegally, you would be subject to penalties defined by your locality under the statutes defining murder and the illegality of it. "Born", then, has absolutely nothing to do with your argument.

Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders, not one, when he murdered his wife and their unborn child. THAT is legal precedent and is therefore a part of US Law.

That said, Abortion Considerations exists on two planes: Individual Morality and Societal Legality.

Our laws in the greatest part exist to stop the more powerful from abusing the less powerful. This rests on laws passed and accepted long before our country was founded.

The roof may not keep out the rain and the walls may not keep out the wind, but the door will keep out the King himself. In short, man's home is his castle. This translates to constitutional prohibition of illegal search and seizure.

In the State of Virginia, generally accepted to be part of the Union, killing a baby that is born is now considered to be legal by the Governor there. He does demand that it be made comfy until it's killed. So, there's that...

In view of the general goal of our laws to promote protection of the powerless from the powerful, it would seem that protecting the absolutely powerless unborn from the obviously more powerful adults killing it would be required.

However, if the unborn is brought to term outside of the states where post birth abortions are legal, then there is the issue of caring for the now born individual.

This responsibility is not accepted by the society. It is assigned to the mother. Here is where the Societal issues rise.

If the society is not required to provide the care, then the society cannot logically be allowed to make this decision. If you don't pay the money, you don't take the ride.

Since laws are written to guide societal issues, they by definition depart from individual morality.

As with Dred Scot and Plessy, the Roe v Wade decision and others made following it on the same topic ignored the individual morality part of the consideration and concentrated instead on the societally expedient part only.

Abotion is legal as it should be, but is morally unjustifiable. Legal and moral intersect in our legal system only by coincidence.

That is why the idiocy of the decisions of a person being only 3/5 of a person or the inane separate by equal definitions were accepted by the Supreme Court.

Strict adherence to Morality would have been too disruptive to society in these decisions. The same is true of abortion.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

code1211 said:

The highlighted portion of your post is the basis for your argument. It is empty.

Please cite the area of the Constitution in which the words in your sentence appear in the Constitution. Since those words DO NOT appear in the Constitution, you assertion is denied.

The Supreme Court decision regarding abortion was as legally well founded as the Supreme Court decisions rendered in Dred Scot and Plessy v Ferguson. Socially expedient, but morally unjustifiable.

Rights and privileges are accorded to many who are alive in the US who were not BORN in the USA and are not legally allowed to be here. Your argument is empty by your own standards.

If you were to murder an immigrant here illegally, you would be subject to penalties defined by your locality under the statutes defining murder and the illegality of it. "Born", then, has absolutely nothing to do with your argument.

Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders, not one, when he murdered his wife and their unborn child. THAT is legal precedent and is therefore a part of US Law.

That said, Abortion Considerations exists on two planes: Individual Morality and Societal Legality.

Our laws in the greatest part exist to stop the more powerful from abusing the less powerful. This rests on laws passed and accepted long before our country was founded.

The roof may not keep out the rain and the walls may not keep out the wind, but the door will keep out the King himself. In short, man's home is his castle. This translates to constitutional prohibition of illegal search and seizure.

In the State of Virginia, generally accepted to be part of the Union, killing a baby that is born is now considered to be legal by the Governor there. He does demand that it be made comfy until it's killed. So, there's that...

In view of the general goal of our laws to promote protection of the powerless from the powerful, it would seem that protecting the absolutely powerless unborn from the obviously more powerful adults killing it would be required.

However, if the unborn is brought to term outside of the states where post birth abortions are legal, then there is the issue of caring for the now born individual.

This responsibility is not accepted by the society. It is assigned to the mother. Here is where the Societal issues rise.

If the society is not required to provide the care, then the society cannot logically be allowed to make this decision. If you don't pay the money, you don't take the ride.

Since laws are written to guide societal issues, they by definition depart from individual morality.

As with Dred Scot and Plessy, the Roe v Wade decision and others made following it on the same topic ignored the individual morality part of the consideration and concentrated instead on the societally expedient part only.

Abotion is legal as it should be, but is morally unjustifiable. Legal and moral intersect in our legal system only by coincidence.

That is why the idiocy of the decisions of a person being only 3/5 of a person or the inane separate by equal definitions were accepted by the Supreme Court.

Strict adherence to Morality would have been too disruptive to society.

Click to expand...

Abortion is legal and moral. It is as moral as getting a tooth pulled

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Please cite the area of the Constitution in which the words in your sentence appear in the Constitution. Since those words DO NOT appear in the Constitution, you assertion is denied.

Click to expand...

If you know anything about constitutional laws, you know those exact words don't have to be in the Constitution for unborn humans to be excluded from the rights to life, liberty, and property. You know "abortion" does not need to be in the document to be legal. Do you know about any SCOTUS rulings which denied only "born" humans have those rights? Because the word "born" is explicit in the 14th Amendment, this could not have happened.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

code1211 said:

In the State of Virginia, generally accepted to be part of the Union, killing a baby that is born is now considered to be legal by the Governor there. He does demand that it be made comfy until it's killed.

Click to expand...

This is a lie.

However, if the unborn is brought to term outside of the states where post birth abortions are legal, then there is the issue of caring for the now born individual.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "post birth abortion". Abortion is termination of pregnancy. Once the fetus is born, there is no pregnancy.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

code1211 said:

in the state of virginia, generally accepted to be part of the union, killing a baby that is born is now considered to be legal by the governor there. He does demand that it be made comfy until it's killed. So, there's that...

Click to expand...

flat out lie

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

code1211 said:

Abotion is legal as it should be, but is morally unjustifiable. Legal and moral intersect in our legal system only by coincidence.

Click to expand...

The “moral” argument is pure horse ****. Who decides what’s moral or immoral? You? No, of course not. Morals are subjective, and as such, are decided by individuals for themselves.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Blue Donkey said:

OK so let's say "constitutional" right. No matter what changes are made in this area as you pointed out, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will never be repealed; neither will the 9th Amendment.

Click to expand...

How do you know that? It isn't as though portions of the Constitution haven't been changed or repealed in the past.

This is a big reason Blue Donkey that discussing the abortion issue with you is completely futile. While you claim you want a real discussion, you then proclaim that various things can "never happen", or "never be done".

Not to mention I think it is you who proclaims that people can't use their religious beliefs to support their views on public policy when we both know that has never been true in the past and probably won't be in the future.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

What disgusts me with this subject is that most anti-abortionists and I include fundamentalist evangelicals here, cry foul over abortion yet eagerly support the bombing, killing and maiming of men, women, children, babies and pregnant women in far off countries.

This hypocrisy actually sickens me, here's a very recent report of just this kind of thing in Somalia.

So please don't pretend to have the moral high ground when you argue against abortion yet argue for killing in a slightly different form.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Scrabaholic said:

This is a lie.







There is no such thing as "post birth abortion". Abortion is termination of pregnancy. Once the fetus is born, there is no pregnancy.

Click to expand...

And he knows it. He failed in more than one other thread on that topic to show that...or to show that he properly understood what palliative/comfort care is.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

vegas giants said:

Abortion is legal and moral. It is as moral as getting a tooth pulled

Click to expand...

Given this statement, your understanding of morality is vacant and free of either understanding or logic.

Please explain the morality of killing a born child who is kept "comfortable" in Virginia while a discussion proceeds on whether or not it should be put to death.

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

code1211 said:

Given this statement, your understanding of morality is vacant and free of either understanding or logic.

Please explain the morality of killing a born child who is kept "comfortable" in Virginia while a discussion proceeds on whether or not it should be put to death.

Click to expand...

Please cite a case of that happening with all the circumstances involved.


I await your evidence

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Scrabaholic said:

This is a lie.

Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then 'Physicians and the Mother' Could Decide If It Lives





There is no such thing as "post birth abortion". Abortion is termination of pregnancy. Once the fetus is born, there is no pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not you feel there is not such thing as post birth abortion, Gov. Northam apparently DOES think that post Birth Abortion is a thing and that it needs to be available legally.

<snip>

NBC4 reporter Julie Carey asked Northam about the measure.

"Do you support her measure and explain her answer?" Carey asked.

"I wasn't there, Julie. And I certainly can't speak for delegate Tran. But I would tell you one, the first think I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam said. "When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable."

Northam continued by saying government shouldn't be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn't be telling women what to do.

"I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman what she should or shouldn't be doing with her body," Northam said.

<snip>

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Scrabaholic said:

This is a lie.

Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then 'Physicians and the Mother' Could Decide If It Lives





There is no such thing as "post birth abortion". Abortion is termination of pregnancy. Once the fetus is born, there is no pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not you feel there is not such thing as post birth abortion, Gov. Northam apparently DOES think that post Birth Abortion is a thing and that it needs to be available legally.

Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then 'Physicians and the Mother' Could Decide If It Lives

<snip>

NBC4 reporter Julie Carey asked Northam about the measure.

"Do you support her measure and explain her answer?" Carey asked.

"I wasn't there, Julie. And I certainly can't speak for delegate Tran. But I would tell you one, the first think I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam said. "When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable."

Northam continued by saying government shouldn't be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn't be telling women what to do.

"I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman what she should or shouldn't be doing with her body," Northam said.

<snip>

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

code1211 said:

Regardless of whether or not you feel there is not such thing as post birth abortion, Gov. Northam apparently DOES think that post Birth Abortion is a thing and that it needs to be available legally.

<snip>

NBC4 reporter Julie Carey asked Northam about the measure.

"Do you support her measure and explain her answer?" Carey asked.

"I wasn't there, Julie. And I certainly can't speak for delegate Tran. But I would tell you one, the first think I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam said. "When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable."

Northam continued by saying government shouldn't be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn't be telling women what to do.

"I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman what she should or shouldn't be doing with her body," Northam said.

<snip>

Click to expand...

So you admit it's not currently legal.


That's what I thought.


Thanks

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

RaleBulgarian said:

flat out lie

Click to expand...

Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then 'Physicians and the Mother' Could Decide If It Lives

<snip>

NBC4 reporter Julie Carey asked Northam about the measure.

"Do you support her measure and explain her answer?" Carey asked.

"I wasn't there, Julie. And I certainly can't speak for delegate Tran. But I would tell you one, the first think I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam said. "When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable."

Northam continued by saying government shouldn't be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn't be telling women what to do.

"I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman what she should or shouldn't be doing with her body," Northam said.

<snip>

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

code1211 said:

Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then 'Physicians and the Mother' Could Decide If It Lives

<snip>

NBC4 reporter Julie Carey asked Northam about the measure.

"Do you support her measure and explain her answer?" Carey asked.

"I wasn't there, Julie. And I certainly can't speak for delegate Tran. But I would tell you one, the first think I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam said. "When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable."

Northam continued by saying government shouldn't be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn't be telling women what to do.

"I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman what she should or shouldn't be doing with her body," Northam said.

<snip>

Click to expand...

God I hope a mother and doctor could decide to end the life of a newborn that was terminally ill and suffering with horrific deformities.



Only a monster would be against that

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

RaleBulgarian said:

The “moral” argument is pure horse ****. Who decides what’s moral or immoral? You? No, of course not. Morals are subjective, and as such, are decided by individuals for themselves.

Click to expand...

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your words for not other reason than to change the meaning and then presents them as if not changes have been made?

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

code1211 said:

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your words for not other reason than to change the meaning and then presents them as if not changes have been made?

Click to expand...

You failed to provide evidence of your claim.


It is dismissed